Table 3.
Methodologic quality of the included studies
| Cerofolini et al. [6] | Cooney [8] | Dwek et al. [9] | Iordache et al. [10] | Levinsohn and Palmer [13] | Mahmood et al. [15] | Tanaka et al. [24] | Weiss et al. [28] | Yamamoto et al. [29] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection | |||||||||
| (1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort | |||||||||
| (a) Truly representative of the average symptomatic patient/general population (describe) in the community (*) | x | x | x | x | |||||
| (b) Somewhat representative of the average symptomatic patient/general population in the community (*) | x | ||||||||
| (c) Selected group of users (eg, nurses, volunteers) | x | ||||||||
| (d) No description of the derivation of the cohort | x | x | x | ||||||
| (2) Ascertainment of exposure | |||||||||
| (a) Secure record (eg, surgical records) (*) | x | x | x | ||||||
| (b) Structured interview (*) | x | ||||||||
| (c) Written self report | |||||||||
| (d) No description | x | x | x | x | x | ||||
| Outcome | |||||||||
| (1) Assessment of triangular fibrocartilage complex tear | |||||||||
| (a) Independent blind assessment (*) | x | ||||||||
| (b) Record linkage (*) | x | x | x | x | |||||
| (c) Self report | x | x | x | ||||||
| (d) No description | x | ||||||||
| (2) Adequacy of followup of cohorts | |||||||||
| (a) Complete followup - all subjects accounted for (*) | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| (b) Subjects lost to followup unlikely to introduce bias - small number lost - > 80% followup, or description provided of those lost) (*) | |||||||||
| (c) Followup rate < 80% (select an adequate %) and no description of those lost | |||||||||
| (d) No statement | x | x | |||||||
| Total stars | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
Based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale; (*) this provides 1 star.